TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of pain-alleviating strategies during allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy)
T2 - A randomized controlled pilot study
AU - Pfieffer, Jennifer
AU - Wehmeier, Kristine
AU - Gee, Karen
AU - Desanto, Tracy
AU - Yousef, Ejaz
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Associazione Allergologi Immunologi Italiani Territoriali e Ospedalieri-AAIITO. Published by EDRA SpA. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/5
Y1 - 2024/5
N2 -
Background. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a potential disease-modifying therapy effective for treatment of various allergic disorders. Pain and fear are common concerns of children, which can pose stress and result in negative experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three marketed distraction devices and ethyl chloride spray (a routinely used topical anesthetic agent for painful procedures), the current clinical standard of care in reducing the perception of needle pain during SCIT administration in children.
Methods. 40 children, aged 4-17 years, receiving SCIT with use of one of three alternative pain therapies or with standard practice were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the pain-modifying interventions. The three interventional groups were ShotBlocker
® (Bionix, Toledo, OH, USA), Buzzy
® I (Pain Care Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA) (vibration only), and Buzzy
® II (vibration with ice). Control group was ethyl chloride spray. The study consisted of two visits during SCIT administration process.
Results. Of these 40 children, 12 received the ShotBlocker, 8 received the Buzzy I, 11 received the Buzzy II, and 9 received ethyl chloride spray (control group).
Conclusions. There were no significant differences found between each of the distraction devices and between the control group. Type II error/false negative finding cannot be ruled out because of a small sample. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no true difference exists between each distraction device and the control group simply because of occurrence of a non-significant P-value in our study.
AB -
Background. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a potential disease-modifying therapy effective for treatment of various allergic disorders. Pain and fear are common concerns of children, which can pose stress and result in negative experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three marketed distraction devices and ethyl chloride spray (a routinely used topical anesthetic agent for painful procedures), the current clinical standard of care in reducing the perception of needle pain during SCIT administration in children.
Methods. 40 children, aged 4-17 years, receiving SCIT with use of one of three alternative pain therapies or with standard practice were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the pain-modifying interventions. The three interventional groups were ShotBlocker
® (Bionix, Toledo, OH, USA), Buzzy
® I (Pain Care Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA) (vibration only), and Buzzy
® II (vibration with ice). Control group was ethyl chloride spray. The study consisted of two visits during SCIT administration process.
Results. Of these 40 children, 12 received the ShotBlocker, 8 received the Buzzy I, 11 received the Buzzy II, and 9 received ethyl chloride spray (control group).
Conclusions. There were no significant differences found between each of the distraction devices and between the control group. Type II error/false negative finding cannot be ruled out because of a small sample. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no true difference exists between each distraction device and the control group simply because of occurrence of a non-significant P-value in our study.
KW - Adolescent
KW - Child
KW - Child, Preschool
KW - Desensitization, Immunologic/methods
KW - Ethyl Chloride/administration & dosage
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Hypersensitivity/diagnosis
KW - Injections, Subcutaneous
KW - Male
KW - Pain Management/methods
KW - Pain/diagnosis
KW - Pilot Projects
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85194863709
U2 - 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.312
DO - 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.312
M3 - Article
C2 - 37671862
AN - SCOPUS:85194863709
SN - 1764-1489
VL - 56
SP - 128
EP - 136
JO - European Annals of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
JF - European Annals of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
IS - 3
ER -